Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.

As I pointed out the first time you brought it up, and a few times since, the argument you advance here was brought up by another poster just prior to your arrival in the prior thread.

A pity you didn't read any of it.

Here's one of my responses to you on that subject, which contains a link to the prior's poster's argument.

I cited Connally's first hand statement, from his autobiography. Are you actually calling Mickey Herskowitz a liar?? This man's reputation is impeccable. He has written for numerous other celebrities, including an American president. From Wikipedia:

He has authored over 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including Gene Autry, Nolan Ryan, Paul “Bear” Bryant, George Allen, Tom Kite, John Connally and Prescott Bush), and others ghostwritten autobiographies of celebrities in similar fields (including Dan Rather, Mickey Mantle, Howard Cosell, Bette Davis, Shirley Jones, Marty Ingels and Gene Tierney).

This man has NEVER been accused of lying or misrepresenting the people he wrote for, and he was citing Connally's first person statements.

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket."

This is a hearsay statement. It's from a book. Connally, curiously, never testified to any such bullet in his Warren Commission testimony or HSCA testimony. Perhaps you would explain why he failed to mention it to the two investigations 14 years apart.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Connally was corroborated by Dallas District attorney, Henry Wade. This is from his interview by the Dallas Morning news on 11/21/93. You can confirm that, via the Dallas Morning News website at http://www.dallasnews.com/

But Wade himself, in that interview, gave his opinion of what you can read or see in the press:

A: You had all kinds of reports from press. Any police officer on the
street who opened his mouth, you'd see it on television in five minutes.

A newspaper article is only hearsay, not evidence. Hopefully you understand that. An unsworn statement, 30 years after the fact, isn't evidence either. Wade's claims at that late date are meaningless.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Further corroboration came from officer Bobby Nolan, who was guarding Connally's room. This is from an interview I made of him, about three years ago. With his permission, the interview was recorded, and can be heard in this presentation:

Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.

Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him"

Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?

Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet.

And I don't know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet because it was in a little, small brown envelope. And it was sealed and it was about, I'd say 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when I got it and I never did look at it or anything."

Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet fragment or as a bullet.

Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a bullet. That's all.

So your unsworn statement from Nolan is 49 years after the event and this, to you, is evidence? Nolan cannot corroborate anything that late in the game, not least because he said he never looked in the envelope. Anything he might say is just hearsay, it is not from his own experience. You really need to understand what evidence is. And what it is not. It is not 49-year-later recollections of hearsay about what an envelope contained. And it's not 30-year later recollections of hearsay about a second rifle on a different floor.

I have no intention of rebutting every conspiracy article you can cite on the web.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

So, no one who disagrees with you can be presenting valid evidence? Is that REALLY what you are claiming?

No. I'm claiming you're citing non-evidence in the above... hearsay from ghost-written books and newspaper articles and recollections (some unsworn) from 15 years, 30 years, and 49(!) years after the event (from respectively, Bell, Wade, and Nolan). None of that is persuasive to me. And I am surprised it is at all persuasive to you. I suggest you read up on hearsay, and find out what the current thinking is on long-term memory.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The clincher to this, is one little word, "GURNEY". A nurse in scrubs, emerging from the surgery of a gunshot victim, carrying a bullet, is not supposed to have gotten it from a gurney. She is supposed to have acquired it from the surgery.

It is the improbability of that term that makes it such a certainty.

Except, of course, the original CE399 bullet did fall off Connally's gurney - or hospital stretcher - and was recovered by a janitor on a different floor from the operating room. It certainly appears from here Connally and Nolan incorporated portions of what they read later into their memory banks as a false memory -- something that is more common than you apparently realize and make no pretensions of even trying to eliminate. It appears from here that Henry Wade simply put himself in the middle of the case. He never mentioned seeing this bullet in his sworn testimony to the Warren Commission less than a year after the fact, for example:

In the above SWORN testimony of his, his only mention of a "bullet" involves one from the Tippit case. His only mention of "fragment" involves fragmentary information. Search it yourself.

You have no evidence, only non-evidence.

Are you simply taking unsworn hearsay claims made three decades after the fact at face value, simply because you like what was claimed?

It appears that way from here.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The FBI claimed that nursing supervisor Audrey Bell told them that she gave an envelope containing a single fragment to Nolan. If that were true, my case would go down the commode, but guess what?

Yep, Bell was adamant that the FBI misrepresented her and that she never gave her envelope, which actually contained four tiny fragments, Nolan or any other uniformed cop. She gave it to plain clothed agents, AKA suits.

Nolan was a uniformed officer, was he not? The FBI agents would be in suits, would they not? You appear to be arguing at cross-purposes.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Surprise, surprise!

From the ARRB:

When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record# 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service.

The ARRB interviewed Bell how many decades after the fact? It was in 1998, was it not? You find her recollections from 35 years after the fact meaningful? I don't. And really, you should not either.

From the various recollections cited, I really don't even know what you're trying to establish. One bullet? Nurse Audrey Bell insists it was multiple fragments. And hers is the only sworn testimony you cite. So you've got a hearsay claim from a book about a bullet, a 35-year later sworn statement about a recollection of some fragments, a 49-year after the fact recollection of some hearsay, a hearsay newspaper claim 30 years after the fact... not one bit of solid evidence in the bunch.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Need any more sources, Hank?

Need some valid evidence, Bob. Quotes of unsworn hearsay recollections from 30 years after the fact are meaningless. Hearsay claims from ghost-written books are meaningless. Hearsay claims about what an envelope supposedly contained 49 years after the fact are meaningless.

Especially when they contradict each other - it apparently doesn't bother you that one person spoke of fragments, while others spoke of a whole bullet. The fact that they contradict each other, not corroborate each other, appears not to matter to you. They all spoke of *something or other*, and that's apparently close enough.

He has failed to document that assertion, but subsonic ammunition for both of those calibers was and is, commonly available. So at the very least, he has confirmed that two of the most popular calibers of rifles/ammunition could have been used.

This is easily looked up. I don't have to document anything, silencer history is fairly straight forward.

USSOCOM didn't start mounting them on .556 carbines (Car-15, M-16A2, M-4) until the mid-1980s after there was development in the technology. I can't find the article in Recoil Magazine which went into great detail on the history and the hows and whys of the technology.

In the book, "Running Recon: A photo Journey with SOG Special Ops Along the Ho Chi Minh Trail" by Frank Greco, all of their weapons are detailed including their secret weapons. There is a full page of silenced weapons. Nothing larger than the .45 caliber rifle and these were all for close contact, not for use at distance. There is a five to seven year tine span from 1963 to when these weapons were used in Vietnam. Most of MACVSOG's silent weapons were of WWII vintage.

If MACVSOG didn't have a rifle capable of a Dallas-style shooting then it is safe to say that no such weapon was available.

This is the part where you have to reveal a Stoner or Browning prototype that nobody has ever seen.

Here's the thing about guns in America: The people who are into guns tend to know a lot about them. Hand gun people know other hand gun people, long gun people know other long gun people.

Marksmen know marksmen.

Marksmen discuss rifles with each other in detail. They write books on their weapons of choice. They also keep track of prototypes and emerging firearm tech.

There are dozens of firearms message boards filled with all kinds of gun lovers. I can't find mention of any other silent rifles that would have been present in Dallas in 1963.

Could you please be specific about what exactly, I am not doing correctly?

I'll do better than that. I'll show you in your own words:

First you write:

Quote:

And the fact that the "gurney" is such a non-intuitive place for it to have come from, makes it a certainty that this was not just a misunderstanding.

So, here, you're arguing that "common sense" dictates something other than the evidence. You're dismissing actual corroborated testimony from multiple sources because you don't like what it says.

But here you write:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You can't even prove that Oswald's rifle was fired then.

So, you're demanding evidence from those who disagree with you that far, far exceeds the level of evidence you've previously disregarded. You won't accept multiply corroborated witness statements about a bullet but you demand what exactly? Film of Oswald in the TSBD directed by Fellini with Pope Paul getting an Associate Producer credit?

The changing levels of evidence that you employ to accept some things and and reject others is what makes you a very, very bad historian.

Sorry Robo, but I don't have time for ridiculous, unproven assertions, which is pretty much all you've posted in this last message.

Actually, you don't seem to be able to find the time to justify your own ridiculous, unproven opinions and inferences, which is pretty much all you've posted in any of your messages.

Quote:

Justify your claims with evidence and reason, and I will be happy to respond.

Indeed, that's what we've been askng you for: evidence to back up your claims of phantom rifles, phantom shooters from phantom locations, firing phantom bullets which hit nothing in Texas and all of which vanished without leaving any evidence behind.

Oswald didn't fire three shots. Only two of the shots could have come from unsuppressed, high powered rifles and they were too close for both to have been fired by Oswald.

Actually, Oswald did fire three shots. Have you even watched any of the videos I posted earlier? Were you able to refute any part of them?

Quote:

"Early" is prior to frame 225.

Ah, your phantom shots from phantom suppressed rifles from phantom locatioins firing magic bullets. And all based on your anti-consilient approach to inferring shots because you''ve inferred that movement you've perceived "must" have be attributable to shots which you've inferred. And all for which you have no evidence.

At which frames do you infer Oswald's three proven shots to have been? Also, at which frames do you infer shots from the storm drain?

Given the circumstances, what is the most likely cause of the reactions following 285?

Shifting the burden of proof and begging the question. You have an affirmative claim for what's happening in that frame. No one else but you is responsible for establishing that claim. "Reactions" and "the circumstances" are just another way of stating your argument and asking others to disprove it with an affirmative counterclaim.

It is a first person, verbatim citation from the man's autobiograpy. Disputing that he said it, is insane.

Quote:

It's from a book.

OHMIGOD!! A book??

Maybe if we heard it on a sitcom, it would impress you more:-)

Quote:

Connally, curiously, never testified to any such bullet in his Warren Commission testimony or HSCA testimony. Perhaps you would explain why he failed to mention it to the two investigations 14 years apart.

I would be glad to, but first, let's understand that his motive for coming forward is a secondary issue, since there is no doubt at all that he said exactly what he was quoted saying.

Or are you going to continue to call Herskowitz a liar?

Connally waited until he was quite literally, on his deathbed, to come forward about this. Had he testified about it during the WC or HSCA hearings, this proof that the FBI fabricated evidence, would have turned the country on its head. He expressed his thoughts about the assassination to his friend Doug Thompson, the publisher and founder of Capital Hill Blue. From the article at http://www.rense.com/general70/connol.htm

I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?

"Absolutely not," Connolly said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

So why not speak out?

"Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

Connally has often said that the country needed closure on the JFK case. I think he was horrendously wrong about that, but at least, he eventually told the truth.

Quote:

But Wade himself, in that interview, gave his opinion of what you can read or see in the press:

A: You had all kinds of reports from press. Any police officer on the
street who opened his mouth, you'd see it on television in five minutes.

A newspaper article is only hearsay, not evidence.

This was a freakin interview. Are you now claiming that the Dallas Morning News lied too???

This man was there. He gave us his first hand report on his discussion with that nurse, which corroborated Connally, flawlessly and beyond any doubt.

Quote:

Hopefully you understand that. An unsworn statement, 30 years after the fact, isn't evidence either. Wade's claims at that late date are meaningless.

Sorry Hank. These verbatim, first person citations from indisputable sources are gold plated "evidence", by any standard.

I can't wait to hear how you plan to attack Nolan:-)

Quote:

So your unsworn statement from Nolan is 49 years after the event

Hank, I don't have time for this crap. The statements are rock solid, from indisputable sources and verbatim, and their consistency makes them 100% self corroborating.

Do you REALLY think all three of those men suffered identical delusions about where that bullet came from?

Or were you thinking that they all lied, because they hadn't been sworn in with their hands on a bible?

Hey! My crazy, conspiratorial theory is this - those men just told the truth.

And now we're up to as many as seven shots during the assassination, according to Robert Harris.

I have never in my life, claimed their were seven shots. How many more times do you intend to misrepresent me?

The simple fact is, that we have no way of knowing how many shots were fired, because some of them came from a suppressed weapon. The fact that only one of the early shots was audible, and neither was nearly as loud as the ones at the end, proves that beyond any doubt.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

As I pointed out the first time you brought it up, and a few times since, the argument you advance here was brought up by another poster just prior to your arrival in the prior thread.

I saw nothing related to the missing initials or anything else about this topic in the links you presented.

Just make your argument right here. I'll be quite interested in how you explain the absence of the initials of the two men who marked the stretcher bullet, before it went to the FBI in Washington. This is from my article:

As we will see, the FBI found a better solution to their problem making lemonade out of this nasty lemon. Instead of threatening a key witness, they seem to have simply decided to replace the inconvenient bullet with one that did indeed come from Oswald's rifle. And as is often the case, one lie requires a multitude of other lies to support it.

Wright gave the bullet to Secret Service agent, Richard Johnsen, who in turn, passed it on to his supervisor, James Rowley. Not surprisingly, both of those men also refused to corroborate CE399, a fact which even the FBI had to admit, stating in Commission exhibit 2011, that the two agents "could not identify" it. It is interesting that the FBI never reported the reason why the two agents refused to corroborate this dubious piece of evidence. Like FBI agents, Secret Service agents were required to initial forensic evidence, and it is hard to imagine them being negligent in such an important case.

Further corroboration that at least Johnsen marked the bullet, came from ex-Secret Service agent, Gerald Blaine, who is a close friend of SA Clint Hill. In an email to David Von Pein, he stated that Hill had spoken with agent Johnsen, who told him that he did indeed, mark the bullet. This is from that email.

The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence.

Von Pein, an avid Warren Commissioner defender, replied to Blaine, warning him that this disclosure would prove that CE399 was not the actual bullet that Tomlinson found, and Blaine promptly amended his statement, claiming that Johnsen must have meant that he initialed the envelope the bullet was in, rather than the bullet itself. As it turned out however, researcher John Hunt had photographed that envelope and Johnsen's signature was not on it. In his final fallback position, Von Pein made the rather dubious claim that what Johnsen really meant when he said he marked the bullet, was that he had typed up a memo that had been attached to the envelope.

Obviously, the explanation for Johnsen and Rowley's rejection of CE399 is that not only did the stretcher bullet look much different than the original, but their initials were nowhere to be found on it. And they were not the only ones whose initials were missing.

The next step in the chain of possession took place when Rowley passed the bullet to FBI agent, Elmer Todd. Todd was adamant that he initialed the stretcher bullet, as he was required to do. But when researcher, John Hunt examined extreme closeup photos of CE-399, he was able to identify initials that were written in later, but could find no trace of Todd's. This is from his article on the subject:

There is no question but that only three sets of initials appear on CE-399. There is likewise no question that they have all been positively identified: RF was Robert Frazier, CK was Charles Killion, and JH was Cortland Cunningham. (See Figure 5.) It can be stated as a fact that SA Elmer Lee Todd's mark is not on the historical CE-399 bullet.

There is no evidence confirming that any of the shell casings found on the 6th floor were fired that day. You can't even prove that Oswald's rifle was fired then.

I have not claimed that we have absolute proof.
Those shell casings, who were fired by the pin the same rifle as at least one of the recovered bullets.
You can of course perform whatever mental gymnastic you wish to explain this away, when and how the shell casings and bullets were produced, but the explanation that best fits the evidence is that Oswalds rifle fired three shots and ejected three shells. In the same calibre as the bullets that left tangible remains and wounds.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

It's not good enough to just blurt something like that out. You need to present evidence or at least, some kind of reasoning to support your accusations.

And what form of evidence would be required to show you that I am not convinced by your arguments exactly? Especially as you seem to conflate evidence with proof?

At this point it has been explained many times over, by myself and others, why you have not convinced us.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

How do you explain the fact that "most" witnesses, according to the WC, heard two closely bunched shots at the end of the attack? That includes all of the nonvictims in the limousine.

Why do I need to explain anecdotal evidence at all? "Of the three shots Oswald fires, his last two were marginally closer together." Or "Echoes."

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

How do you explain the loud and startling noise at frame 285, which provoked three people to duck, while two others spun around and away from the probable source of that shot, at enormous speed?

I don't have to. The only person claiming to know those people are startled, have heard the same noise, and the noise was a gunshot, is you.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I don't believe there are any plausible, alternative explanations; do you?

I don't even see anything that needs explaining. But yes, I find somebody shouting "Duck!" plausible. Given the confusion of the moment I find traffic noise, crowd noise, sirens, shouting, echoes or confusion entirely plausible.

I find those more plausible given that you have yet to offer any physical evidence for more than three bullets that day. No bullet hole. No shell casing. No bullet.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And how do you explain the absence of similar reactions to the early shots? Why don't we see people simultaneously ducking, spinning around, shielding their ears etc?

You will find NO Secret Service agents acting, no witnesses screaming, diving to the ground or anything else that is consistent with reactions to 130 decibel, high powered rifle shots until AFTER frame 285.

How do you explain that?

How do you explain all the happy, smiling faces in the Altgens photo, after at least two, high powered rifle shots had supposedly been fired??

Hmmm. People don't react the way you expect when there is a gunshot? Perhaps the problem is with your expectations. Perhaps, then, we should not assume people are reacting to a mystery gunshot based on your opinion.

Just saying...

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And how do you explain why most of the witnesses only heard one of the early shots?

Because only three shots were fired that day. Because the Plaza is an echo chamber. Because people were scared, and confused. Because the human memory, despite your insistence is not frame perfect, and should not be expected to match filmed footage exactly.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

It is ludicrous to think that the early shots came from a high powered rifle - Oswald's or anyone else's.

If you mean the silent shots, that left no bullets, holes, or physical traces, it certainly is ludicrous.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Sorry, but that argument doesn't improve with repetition. If you can't prove they were fired on 11/22/63, then you need to go back to the drawing board.

I can't prove it. No. I can however continue to point out it is the explanation that best fits the totality of evidence.

I assume, that if you are holding evidence to this standard however, you are about to point us towards the silenced rifle, that you can prove was fired that day, along with the bullets and the evidence of their impact?

If not Oswalds rifle, with shell casings it fired, and at least one of the bullets recovered having been fired by that rifle, suggests an obvious solution.

If we weigh the evidence, the balance tilts against the theory that is based entirely upon what you think people look like they are reacting to in a film.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I have no idea what you mean, stating the "gantry" is the most likely impact point.

A lighting gantry is the array, including the streetlights themselves, above the street. Based on available evidence for the 'missing' bullets final destination, the gantry is the most likely point of impact. There are other plausible explanations. An oak tree, The street. It is a little mystery that will likely remain because we do not expect absolute proof from imperfect evidence.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

But Holland is not a competent researcher. His theory has been refuted, even by nutters like Gary Mack and Dale Myers. Myers, one of the more radical of the LN advocates, reviewed that documentary in considerable detail at his blog.

Holland's greatest achievement in his documentary, was to con (or bribe) Amos Euins to totally reverse his Warren Commission testimony in which he said he heard four shots and reported seeing an older, balding man with a rifle. He originally, told a reporter that he thought the sniper was a black man.

But after Max got through with him, he was an absolutely perfect, PC, three shot witness who was sure he saw Oswald in that window.

To put it another way, Holland is not just incompetent; he is thoroughly lacking in integrity. And you will find many LNers who feel the same way I do about that.

And of his body of work, I have found one argument convincing as a likely explanation based upon it's own merits and evidence.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That's the third time you have repeated that argument. Maybe it will come true after five or six more??

It is true after one. It is true that there were three spent cartridges. This is evidence of three shots. If you wish to argue they are evidence of shots fired elsewhere, or elsewhen, then feel free. But they remain evidence.

Would you care to explain how items recorded in evidence at the time are voided as evidence?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I did not state why you asked for evidence. I asked why you didn't ask for good evidence, rather than a specific evidence type.

You stated I asked for evidence because I knew you could not supply it. You stated that within the question.

And for the record, I am continuing to ask for good evidence. Before you ask if people in the film footage are reacting to more than three gunshots, you need to supply evidence for those shots.

You have yet to do so.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Oops! Now you're back to selectively demanding a single type of evidence. Why don't you just ask for good evidence - scientific, empirical and corroborated witness testimony, etc?

No I am asking for any form of physical evidence. That is asking for any of a multitude of forms.

I am asking for those, because they will be the best way to establish if there were bullets fired. Other forms can be consistent with bullets fired with out being conclusive.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No sir. You have deliberately selected a solitary evidence type, because you don't think I have it. That's great gamesmanship, but a lousy way to resolve important issues.

And despite arguing this was your claim above, you repeat the claim.

I ask for ANY kind of physical evidence for any more than three shots fired.

As it happens, physical evidence for there being bullets that were fired, and hit something would be the very best way to resolve important issues. To claim otherwise is bewildering.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Why don't you just address the evidence and arguments I presented?

I am addressing those arguments. I am stating that there is no physical evidence to support the claims, and asking if you can provide some.

If you can not, then your claims of any more than three shots, fired from any rifle other than Oswalds, remains unconvincing.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

This is easily looked up. I don't have to document anything, silencer history is fairly straight forward.

As admirable as your post is, burden of proof has been reversed.

Mr Harris is the one speculating that a silenced weapon was used. It is up to him to support his claim, and to verify his facts. If he wishes to claim a silenced weapon was available, then he will be able to produce an example of such a weapon and show it was capable of the shots he is describing.

That will show this is a possibility.

If he wants us to consider this as a probable solution to the event, then he will be able to provide physical evidence of bullets fired by such a rifle. He will show evidence of there being such a rifle, in a location, firing bullets at JFK.

Then we can consider if those bullets best explain events in witness testimony or filmed footage.

But of course, telling him how to convince us has yet to be appreciated. He would seem to enjoy telling me what evidence I should rather be convinced by instead.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

So, in your theory, as I understand it, there are FOUR "magic" bullets, not one.

Magic Bullet, the First: This would be the one that Tomlinson found in a hospital corridor, near a stretch that had once been occupied by the Governor

Tomlinson told the WC that it was NOT the bullet from Connally's stretcher. Parkland treated over a thousand gunshot victims every year. That bullet was obviously, from someone else's stretcher. It might even have been from Kennedy's.

Do you really think that calling this a "magic bullet" is a substitute for dealing with the fact that it was marked by agents whose initials are nowhere to be found on CE399?

Or that every man to examine the stretcher bullet, including two Secret Service agents, refused to confirm that it was CE399?

Quote:

when he was first brought into Parkland Hospital. According to your argument, as I understand it, this bullet was more pointed that CE399

No, that was the "argument" of Mr. O.P. Wright, an ex police officer - AKA, witness #136, who actually examined the bullet, and who you will need to attack or call a liar

Quote:

and was not CE399. It somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail.

It never "vanished". After being initialed by Johnsen, Todd and probably Rowley, it was sent to the FBI labs. What they did with it, is unknown.

Quote:

Magic Bullet, the Second: This would be the one that Governor Connally supposedly saw fall onto his hospital stretcher. That was then mentioned by Wade, and Nolan. It too somehow vanished, according to you, from the evidence trail.

Wrong again. It was delivered to the DPD that evening. After that, it was sent to that great black hole, called the FBI.

Quote:

Magic Bullet, the Third: This would be the one in the record, Commission Exhibit 399. This one: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...ol17_0038a.htm (bottom of page). The one that is traceable to Oswald's weapon, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Of course it was fired from Oswald's rifle - by the FBI, into water or cotton wading, which also explains why it was in such good condition.

Quote:

According to your theory, this bullet had nothing to do with the assassination of the President,

No, according the hard evidence and the verifiable facts, it had nothing to do with the assassination. Why do you refuse to address that evidence?

Quote:

and somehow appeared in the evidence trail in lieu of one of the above bullets (presumably, "Magic Bullet, the First").

It didn't "somehow" appear in the evidence trail. It was put there by the agency whose clearly stated agenda was that "the public must be convinced" that there was no conspiracy and no accomplices. That policy was established, almost before the corpse was cold.

Quote:

Magic Bullet, the Fourth: This would be the one that must have shattered and left the multiple fragments contained within an envelope that nurse Audrey Bell said she gave to a man in a suit.

No, that was almost certainly, from the same bullet that caused Connally's thigh wound.

Quote:

Another example of you simply ignoring or arguing away evidence you don't like,

What "evidence" is that?

The bullet that was unanimously rejected by everyone who examined the original before it went to the FBI?

The bullet which does not bear the initials of any of the men who marked the original at Parkland?

The bullet that could not possibly have been the one that fell from Connally's gurney and was delivered to the DPD by officer Nolan?

Why are you pretending that the problem is my imagination, when you know very well, that the facts and evidence prove you wrong - AGAIN?

Quote:

and conjecturing up theories to support your argument that Oswald didn't fire the shot that wounded both the President and the Governor.

Making this about me, is not going to help your cause. Nor are your attempts to substitute nonsense about magic bullets, for serious discussion of the facts and evidence.

Why are the initials of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, missing from CE399?

Why did the FBI phone Tomlinson, shortly after receiving fragments that were large enough to compare with the bullet he found, and tell him to "keep his mouth shut" about finding it?

How did the governor of Texas, the Dallas district attorney and a police officer, all suffer from exactly the same delusion, regarding a whole bullet coming from Connally's "gurney"?

Why did every man to examine the Tomlinson bullet, refuse to confirm that it was CE399?

Why did nursing supervisor Bell, flatly deny the FBI's claim that she said she gave her envelope to Nolan?

This is what's important Hank. Let's talk about it.

Quote:

You throw away the hard evidence that links Oswald to the assassination (CE399),

I accept what is supported by the evidence and reject that which is proven false, by the evidence - no exceptions.

What do you hope to achieve by making all these ugly accusations?

Quote:

and then, based on recollections from 3, 15, 35, or 49 years after the assassination, imagine there must been other bullets in the evidence trail instead.

This is an historically important issue, Hank.

Let's deal with it seriously.

Quote:

Sometimes I wonder if you even know what you're arguing for.

There is actually, some truth in that statement:-)

Quote:

In a preceding post, you cited Bell's recollection of multiple fragments within an envelope as if it confirmed Officer Nolan's recollection of a bullet in an envelope.

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to misrepresent me, at least make your misrepresentations comprehensible.

All bullets or fragments at Parkland, wound up in evidence envelopes, before going to the DPD. Bell placed four tiny fragments - almost particles from Connally's wrist, in an envelope and gave it to two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office.

The nurse who recovered the bullet from Connally's thigh, also placed it in an envelope before giving it to Nolan.

I never said or remotely implied that anything Bell did, corroborated Nolan. If you didn't understand that part of the article, why didn't you just pm me and ask for clarification?

and shows you (or should show you but doesn't) the issue with relying on recollections from decades after the fact. You ignore the contradictions between the recollections and blithely cite both recollections.

There are no contradictions, at least, outside of the FBI's antics. They tried to cover up the bullet Nolan delivered, by making it appear that he actually received and delivered Bell's envelope. To do that, they had to lie about what she told them in their interview of her, on 11/23/63. Look at their report:

Of course, Bell was adamant that she never gave her envelope to a uniformed officer, but to two plain clothed agents. The other problem was, their reference to a single "fragment". Bell actually placed four tiny fragments into her envelope.

They had to do that, because Nolan's envelope only contained one object, so they needed to make the Bell envelope match.

The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher.

It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding.

Why? A bullet was found after it fell off a gurney by Tomlinson. Why couldn't all the above people have read about it in the Warren Report or the conspiracy literature, and incorporated themselves into the story? You've got "stories" and "recollections" from decades after the fact. You have no contemporaneous evidence.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

What evidence do you have that the bullet ever existed? It is incorrect to say that's "The bullet that Connally described", as the only account of this bullet appears in a ghost-written book by another gentleman entirely. Connally had multiple opportunities to mention this bullet. Where did he mention it?

To the Warren Commission? No.
To the HSCA? No.
To Life Magazine? No.
To the Media from his hospital bed shortly after the assassination? No.

He mentioned it nowhere. Still waiting for you to explain this lack of corroboration for the account you cite. I've asked before. You just keep on ignoring the point.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it,

Hello? Since none of those four marked it, all they could do was examine it and say either "That looks like the bullet" or "that doesn't look like the bullet". There is no way to confirm - short of a permanent mark - that a particular bullet is the one they handled. Of course they didn't confirm it. I would expect nothing less. Your complaint above isn't germane in any fashion to the authenticity of the bullet. Do try again.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

...and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE.

No one was startled by the sound of suppressed gunshots, which is why I never claimed they were.

The "suppressed gunshots" is just one of the begged questions you've put forth here on this forum.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

And there is a much better way to evaluate witness testimonies, than to make sweeping generalizations about their accuracy or inaccuracy. We can test some of the most important statements, with the Zapruder film.

No, you presume we can, then cherry-pick the results you like, and ignore or explain away the rest.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That's why the limo passengers are such valuable witnesses. Mrs. Connally "said" that she heard one shot, then looked back at JFK, then heard a "second shot" which provoked her to turn back to her husband and pull him back to her.

Was she correct? The Zapruder film will tell us, beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the film, we can see, not only that she looked back at Kennedy, exactly as she claimed, but we can see WHEN she did that, which in this case, is even more important. She looked back at about frame 258.

And based on Nellie's confusion (and some other testimony), you conjecture a convoluted shooting scenario, with maybe an early shot before Z133, another one at Z150-160, another at Z223, another at Z285, another at Z313, and another two (or more, you never did state exactly how many) after Z313. So perhaps, seven OR MORE shots, of which Nellie said she heard three. She was one confused witness by your own scenario. And you don't get to salvage the points you like by conjecturing four or more shooters, some with silenced weapons, popping up, missing everything, and vanishing without a trace. And then further postulating swapped evidence to explain away the FACT that all six pieces of hard ballistic evidence that were recovered (three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet) were determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. That's called enlarging the conspiracy to fill in or explain away the inconvenient facts.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

In fact, the last verifiable, suppressed shot, was fired at 223, when the limo was almost exactly, 100 feet from the Daltex building. That shot, BTW, was quite inaccurate, striking Kennedy in the back, roughly 8-9 inches below the center of the head, which had to have been, the preferred target.

Gee, I thought snipers were taught to shoot for the center of mass, the largest portion of the target, the trunk. You can cite the instructions to the snipers somewhere? Or are you simply conjecturing what you cannot prove -- what the "preferred" target was, to assume a miss to the greatest degree?

[quote=Robert Harris;10847013]The shots at the end, were obviously, not suppressed and were infinitely louder.[quote]

Infinitely louder than zero, yes, if there were no suppressed shots.

They would not have "infinitely" louder than a suppressed shot, however. They would have been some magnitude louder, not "infinitely" louder.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of what I said. The early shots were the ones that were suppressed. Only one of them was even noticed by most witnesses and neither was loud enough to provoke visible startle reactions.

The ones at 285 and 313 were many times louder and provoked dramatic and very obvious, startle reactions.

Notice that the suppressed shots stopped when the limo went out of range. Only then, were the high powered rifles fired.

According to your theory, you mean. You state all the above as if it's proven fact. It's not.

His repeated statement that Jackie was turned to her left when that shot was fired, combined with her own statement that she was turned to the left, far outweighs his subjective opinion about slide #5...

No, both what Jackie was doing when he heard the shot, and what he was doing when he heard the shot, are his observations and recollections of the assassination.

You wish to keep his observation about Jackie, but throw out his observation about himself.

That's called cherry-picking.

You even admit he got some things wrong:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Willis claimed that the shot was fired at the same instant that he released the shutter, but that was untrue.

But you attempt to retain the recollections you like:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

As he correctly stated, he saw Jackie turned to her left when the first shot was fired and then saw her turn toward her husband, as he also stated (twice). It was after she turned, that he snapped slide #5.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

OMG!! Are you actually going to argue that the shot was fired prior to 223??

I was talking about "plausible" alternatives. Illogical theories with zero evidential support do not fall into that category. Your own star witness, Clint Hill.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

No, Connally's statements are evidence for shots at 160 and 223, as well as one of the shots at the end. Please do not distort or try to exaggerate what I say. The irony of you accusing me of selectively agreeing with witnesses is getting very thick around here Last week, he was your star witness

Exactly how many "star" witnesses am I allowed, anyway? Which other "star witnesses" do I have besides Connally and Clint Hill? Can you provide a formal list of the ones I've used to date?

And why is it when I quote the Governor, or Secret Service agent Clint Hill, they become my "star witness", but when you quote them, they are not your "star witnesses"?

I sense the appellation "star-witness" is used by you in a pejorative fashion, as with a sneer or derogatory manner.

If all you've got is name-calling, you haven't much.

You haven't much. In the first quote above, all you do is dismiss the points I made as implausible, but don't explain why you see them as implausible. A week or so later, you were claiming:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Hank's "two shot" theory is easily refuted.

It wasn't refuted, it was simply dismissed as "implausible". And despite my citing the testimony of four men who were the closest to Kennedy at the time of the shooting (Hill, Connally, Kellerman, and Greer), you claim the argument I advanced is an example of "Illogical theories with zero evidential support".

You never did show what was implausible or illogical, and why the testimony of the men I cited doesn't rise to the level of "evidential support", but when you cite the same men, it does.

But conspiracy theorists argue -- as Bob Harris does here in this thread currently, but he is by no means alone -- that much of the hard evidence implicating Oswald is planted, merely because it conflicts with their theories and they can find one witness somewhere who once said something different, even if they had to wait 30 years or more for the counter-claim to surface.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

I said no such thing, and it's getting a bit tiring, hearing you misrepresent me.

You are alleging a different bullet was discovered, and CE399 was "covertly place for discovery" (planted) in the evidence chain in lieu of the original bullet.

Are you not? You prefer to use the word "swapped" apparently, but "planted" works perfectly as well.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

CE399 couldn't possibly have been planted. If it had, the men who originally handled it, would have had no problem confirming it, and the initials of SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd, would have been on it.

As noted, discussed in detail just before you got here. Refer to the prior thread. We are under no obligation to restart the debate from the start just because you arrived late for the discussion.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

CE399 was very obviously, not the bullet that Tomlinson found. When the FBI discovered that the original was not fired by Oswald, they undoubtedly fired a round from Oswald's rifle into water or wadding and then presented it to the WC.

A very serious charge entirely lacking in any evidential support. Typical approach by a conspiracy advocate. When stuck, simply allege the evidence contrary to your view has been falsified in some manner.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

In addition to the unanimous refusal of those four men to confirm CE399 and the absence of the markings of Johnsen and Todd, it is obvious that they discovered Tomlinson's bullet did not match with fragments they received just before midnight on 11/22/63. Why else would they have needed to call Tomlinson in the wee hours of 11/23 to tell him to keep his mouth shut about the bullet he found?

This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

Curiously, Tomlinson mentioned nothing of the sort to any other conspiracy authors to my knowledge, nor to the Warren Commission in his testimony. For example, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS by Josiah Thompson, published in 1967, mentions this supposed call not at all.

Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record? He doesn't say. Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in, someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it out. And not being seen either time. How does one accomplish that feat? Who is the most likely candidate? Were others approached and declined? Why no statements from them? Why no evidence of this supposed other rifle, other than a recollection of hearsay from three decades after the fact from one man?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You need to start citing me VERBATIM, Hank. I said that Frank Ellsworth made that claim, and that if true, it would explain both the alleged Mauser and Oswald's rifle being present in the Depository. It would also explain the evidence suggesting that the two, unsuppressed rifle shots came from the 6th floor.

Yes, that's what I said... that you argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. Thank you for arguing the point again immediately above, thereby proving what I said was accurate.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Both Tomlinson's bullet and the one that wounded Connally, wound up at the FBI. You need to ask them that question.

First off, I was clearly talking about the second rifle you've argued was found in the TSBD. You're responding about the bullets. A clear LOGICAL FALLACY, the one known as changing the subject (RED HERRING). That's where you talk about something you're comfortable with, rather than attempting to answer the points you can't.

Secondly, it's your accusation about the bullets, devoid of any evidence. I suggest you post the evidence to support your accusations, rather than trying to shift the burden of proof (another LOGICAL FALLACY) and tell us the FBI needs to disprove your contentions.

Thirdly, beyond that, you haven't proven that "Tomlinson's bullet" and "the one that wounded Connally" are not one and the same.

Originally Posted by HSienzant

He doesn't say.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Actually, I have, but only for the last 20 years:-)

Please summarize here where you explain what happened to the supposed second rifle, which was what I was talking about, as can be clearly seen here:

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Bob Harris has argued that a second rifle was found on a different floor of the TSBD. But what happened to it, and why isn't it in the evidence record? He doesn't say. Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in, someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it out. And not being seen either time. How does one accomplish that feat? Who is the most likely candidate? Were others approached and declined? Why no statements from them? Why no evidence of this supposed other rifle, other than a recollection of hearsay from three decades after the fact from one man?

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Someone on the inside must have been responsible for bringing it in

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

You really need to stop misrepresenting me. If you are confused about my analysis, reread my articles and watch my presentations. As a last resort, just PM me and ask...

Still talking about the supposed second rifle, Bob. See the above quote, with the bold-faced portions.

Pretend some more you're being responsive. We can see you're avoiding my points entirely.

Where did you provide the evidence for who was responsible for bringing this second rifle into the building? You never did. I am not misrepresenting you. You are misrepresenting my points entirely.

I remind you that approximately 90% of the witnesses heard three shots. Your claim that "Neither did anyone else" hear a second shot (between the first & third) is patently untrue.

WOW! This is the mother of all misrepresentations. You know very well, that I never claimed that no one heard a shot between the first and third. I have said countless times that they heard only one early shot and then closely bunched shots at the end.

Like John Connally, they only heard one of the early shots. Therefore, I was absolutely correct in stating "Neither did anyone else.". John Connally didn't hear that 223 shot. Nor did his wife, or Mrs. Kennedy, or Roy Kellerman or
Bill Greer, or "most" of the other witnesses, as was confirmed by the WC.

Quote:

Most witnesses claimed to hear three shots.

Great catch, Hank!

Quote:

Obviously, there are other possibilities than the one above you allow. Like the Governor, under the duress of the shooting, didn't hear the shot that struck him because his nervous system was overwhelmed at the time by the stress of a bullet penetrating his trunk, going through his wrist and into his thigh.

If he was the only one who failed to hear that second early shot, you might have a case. But the fact that no one else heard it either, pretty much lays your theory to rest.

Quote:

Another possibility you haven't eliminated is that the Governor simply mis-remembered after the fact, and was struck by the first of two shots he heard

Hit Jacket was blown open at 223 and his tie flipped to his left. He was hit at 223. Do I really have to repost the graphics I showed you, on that issue?

Quote:

and the President was struck in the head by the second of two shots he heard.

Please use frame numbers and be clear about whether you are still pitching your theory about there only being two shots in total. After we resolve that, I will be happy to answer your question.

Quote:

Except he connected the sound of the second shot he heard with the impact on the head,

"connected" is an ambiguous term, which can be quite misleading. He said he heard the shot hit the head. But he expressed no doubts at all, that he was only hearing a single shot then. Neither did anyone else.

Are you really going to resurrect this silly theory?

Quote:

and on the resulting spray of brain matter that swamped the car.

Yes, he heard ONE bullet hit the head and cause blood and debris to be blown forward. What is your point?

Quote:

[color="Navy"]CONNALLY: ... the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Would you please, just state what you are trying to prove?

Quote:

Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.[/COLOR

So he was awake and clear enough to hear the Z313 impact. But didn't hear any shot at Z285 whatsoever. Your argument for Connally hearing Z285 is therefore shot down.

Nonsense. He might have heard only the 285 shot, and then felt the debris. In his condition, as he was by his own admission, losing consciousness, anything is possible. You have based pretty much your entire case on Connally and other witnesses being delusional (and suffering identical delusions:-). So why would you deny the possibility that when he really was in a condition to be delusional, might have been mistaken?

Are you really trying to make a case that Connally's memory under those conditions, was better than everyone else's?

Quote:

You quote his language very carefully when it agrees with your theory but ignore it entirely when it conflicts with your theory. That's the very definition of cherry-picking, I would think.

No sir. "Cherry picking" is when you deny almost everything a witness said, up to the point when he is about to pass out:-)

And "Cherry picking" is when you deny a witness's statement which are corroborated by the other witnesses as well as the Zapruder film, and accept the ones that contradict them.

The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher.

It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding.

The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE.

You've got two whole bullets and some fragments possibly from a third.

Where did all those bullets come from?

You are of the persuasion, I believe, that the bullet described in the hearsay ghost-written Mickey Hershowitz book is a legitimate bullet that actually wounded Connally.

Where do the supposed fragments reported by nurse Audrey Bell fit in?
Were those fragments originally part of the bullet you think disappeared?
And where does the nearly whole bullet found on a different floor by Darrell Tomlinson fit in?

That item is not related to the wounding of the President or Governor, is it?

If not, where did it come from and why is being found near the Governor's stretcher?

I'd really like you to relate your theory here. And provide the evidence -- not the suggestions of malfeasance based on thin air -- we've heard those already. The evidence.

His repeated statement that Jackie was turned to her left when that shot was fired, combined with her own statement that she was turned to the left, far outweighs his subjective opinion about slide #5, and it might be worth considering that that slide was worth a LOT more money if it was believed to have been simultaneous with the first shot.

But this is a moot question anyway, since frame 202, was well before the shot at 223.

Sorry Hank. "Close" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

Willis claimed that the shot was fired at the same instant that he released the shutter, but that was untrue.

As he correctly stated, he saw Jackie turned to her left when the first shot was fired and then saw her turn toward her husband, as he also stated (twice). It was after she turned, that he snapped slide #5.

OMG!! Are you actually going to argue that the shot was fired prior to 223??

This has nothing to do with what I "insist". It has everything to do with the evidence. His own statements prove that he was not truthful when he said the first shot was simultaneous with him snapping #5.

As I stated previously, the Zapruder film provides us with the ability to conclusively prove or disprove important witness statements. It proved that Nellie was correct and it proved that Phil Willis wasn't.

Read his testimony. He goes on and on and on, trying to argue that #5 was simultaneous with the first shot. If that had been true, his photo would have been far more famous and valuable than it was.

Uh huh. And you choosing his subjective opinion which you ADMIT WAS WRONG, over his verified statement, made TWICE that he heard the shot while Jackie was still turned to her left, and the fact that she said exactly the same thing, is not something that you cherry picked??

The Zapruder film is an incredibly important filter for numerous witness statements. It not only tests for whether various events actually took place, but for WHEN they took place, which is often much more important.

I never ignore important evidence. I test it as best I can, to determine whether it is true.

My "contentions" are the product of the evidence.

I'm disappointed that you haven't figured that out by now. It's not just a fluke that I consistently present evidence to prove my assertions.

Utter nonsense.

I evaluate what witnesses say and try to test their statements. If they can be verified, then they become "great" sentences:-)

I have no idea what he "thought". I only know what he said.

The first shot was fired while Jackie, SA Hickey and SA Johns were turned to their left. Each of them turned to their right, well before 223, after they heard the first shot.

Not only did they say that, but we can confirm in the Zapruder film that they did exactly what they claimed. And we can confirm that each of them did that prior to the shot at 223.

And speaking of people who claimed that they turned from their left to their right in reaction to the first shot, another fellow said exactly that. His name was John Connally.

Remember him? He stated that he heard the first shot and was hit by the second, but never heard the second shot. He also stated this:

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right

That's FOUR witnesses who said they were looking to their left and turned in reaction to the first shot. And EVERY ONE OF THEM can be easily corroborated in the Zapruder film.

Are you actually going to continue with this "theory" that there were a total of two shots??

"The driver did it", might be easier to defend. At least you would have an optical illusion to work with

Hank, you have never responded to this post. Let's put this "one early shot" theory to bed, so that we can move on to discussing why only one of them was heard by John Connally, and countless other witnesses.

You have also, never addressed the fact that there were no reactions following any of the early shots which were similar to the ones following 285 and 313.

To the limo passengers, the earliest shots should have been louder than the final ones, because the limo was closer to the alleged sniper's nest.

How is it that there were no visible startle reactions to gunshots which would have been 16 times louder than the level at which involuntary startle reactions are supposed to be provoked??

No one was startled by the early shots, Hank. Most witnesses didn't even realize that the one they did hear, was a gunshot. And the other one was inaudible to almost everyone.

Those shots didn't all come from the same weapon. That fact is ridiculously obvious.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The fact that Connally, Wade and Nolan, ALL talked about the bullet coming from a "gurney", is the clincher.

It is so unintuitive, that it couldn't have been a mistake or a misunderstanding.

The bullet that Connally described, was indeed, the one that wounded him and probably JFK. It couldn't possibly have been the same one that Tomlinson found.

Nor could the bullet that Tomlinson found have been CE399, which is why all four of the men who handled it prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm it, and why neither of the initials of the two men who marked the Tomlinson bullet can be found on CE399. READ THE ARTICLE.

You've got two whole bullets and some fragments possibly from a third.

Where did all those bullets come from?

I already answered your question. The Tomlinson bullet might have been from JFK's stretcher, or it might have been from a wound victim who had nothing to do with the assassination. Parkland treated more than a thousand such victims every year.

The Connally bullet, obviously came from one of the assassins and was fired at 223.

Quote:

You are of the persuasion, I believe, that the bullet described in the hearsay ghost-written Mickey Hershowitz book is a legitimate bullet that actually wounded Connally.

So, what is your "rebuttal" today? Was Hershowitz a liar, or Connally a liar, because he didn't swear on a bible that he was truthful:-)

The clincher here, is that he was fully corroborated by Wade and Nolan, who talked to the nurse who was holding that bullet in her hand and very specific that it came from Connally's gurney.

Bill Stinson, who told the nurse to "give it to him", pointing at Nolan, also corroborated the fact that he was told that a whole bullet was recovered, although he misunderstood, thinking it was recovered in surgery. There is only one way he could have come to that conclusion - that same nurse, told him.

Consider the fact that all three of those men were told about a whole bullet, which is what Connally also stated. How is it possible that nursing supervisor Bell place four tiny wrist fragments into an envelope and then told the Dallas district attorney and a police officer that it was a whole bullet???

Quote:

Where do the supposed fragments reported by nurse Audrey Bell fit in?

I explained all that in the article. If you want to attack it, you might consider actually reading it:-)

Those were fragments from Connally's wrist.

Quote:

Were those fragments originally part of the bullet you think disappeared?

Of course.

Quote:

And where does the nearly whole bullet found on a different floor by Darrell Tomlinson fit in?

I answered that question at the top of my post.

Quote:

That item is not related to the wounding of the President or Governor, is it?

It might have been associated with the wounding of JFK.

Quote:

If not, where did it come from and why is being found near the Governor's stretcher?

Tomlinson originally testified that it came from another stretcher, which was already there, and might have had nothing to do with the assassination.

You would know this if you had read the article.

Did you even read Tomlinson's testimony?

They eventually, got him to change his story, but what could he do, after they told him that the bullet matched ammunition from Oswald's rifle??

Now that I've answered your questions, why don't you answer a few of mine?

Why are none of the initials of the men who marked the Tomlinson bullet before it went to the FBI labs, present on CE399?

Why is it that every one of the four men who handled that bullet prior to it going to the FBI, refused to confirm that it was CE399?

Why did the FBI awaken Tomlinson in the wee morning hours, shortly after receiving fragments that were large enough to match up with his bullet, and tell him to keep his mouth shut about finding that bullet?

Why did the FBI lie, claiming that agent Odum had gotten a partial confirmation from Tomlinson and Wright, when in fact, Odum himself flatly denied ever ever getting such a confirmation, or even seeing CE399?

I have never in my life, claimed their were seven shots. How many more times do you intend to misrepresent me?

The simple fact is, that we have no way of knowing how many shots were fired, because some of them came from a suppressed weapon. The fact that only one of the early shots was audible, and neither was nearly as loud as the ones at the end, proves that beyond any doubt.

I am sorry but this post is laughable.

Why would shots being supressed stop us being able to count them?

Physical impact on the world is not dependent on being heard.

Surely you could show us how many holes they formed? How many bullets were recovered?

If not, perhaps you could explain why there is no physical evidence to tell us how many of these bullets were fired?

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Hank, you don't have to call all these Parkland witnesses liars or delusional anymore. Let me help you out with a better argument. Look at CE-842, a WC photo of the envelope and wrist fragments that Audrey Bell, according to the FBI, filled out and gave to officer Nolan.

Now look toward the right-bottom of the envelope. Do you see the upside-down "BMN"? BMN are Bobby Nolan's initials. In fact, I sent him a printout of this exhibit and he said that the letters looked like his writing.

Unfortunately, there are a few problems. Keep in mind that Bell was processing the most important evidence she had ever seen in her life. Do you suppose she would have used a fresh, clean envelope or one that was laying in a waste basket and required her to erase a lot of old data? Let's take a closer look.

I have encircled some of the partially erased, broken character fragments, obviously, from previous data, as well as a multitude of other partially erased characters. Look at all the partial characters that were overwritten by both Nolan's and Fritz's initials.

Also notice the absence of Bell's initials, in spite of her claim that she wrote them, as she was required to do in literally hundreds of other criminal cases. To fail to do that, would have broken the chain of custody and could have cost her her job.

And Bell was no rookie. She was the nursing supervisor of the entire ER of the largest hospital in Dallas. She got her RN in 1946.

Last question. Look at the four tiny fragments in the plastic container. Bell said she processed them herself and placed them in the envelope. Do you REALLY think that just minutes later, she forgot what was in the envelope and told the Dallas DA, one police officer and undoubtedly, Bill Stinson, that it held a single, whole bullet?

Oh, almost forgot. Yes, I think Nolan's initials were forged - a trivial task, dealing with three capital letters. With a little practice you or I could have done it as well as they did.

An unknown number of additional shooters, fired an unknown number of shots, for which we have no physical evidence. They left no trace of evidence.

We base this deduction on Mr Harris believing that the witnesses all had powers of recall, that are perfect enough to him apply to the Z Film, and discern that several people were 'startled' by a gunshot (and ONLY a gunshot, to the exclusion of all other noises). We base it on his opinion of the illegible markings on an envelope. His opinion of the appearance of a bullet. And his ability to understand when decades old memoirs, not sworn testimony, is more accurate than testimony given at the time (despite memories growing less accurate with time...)

And yet we remain unconvinced.

__________________@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

I have encircled some of the partially erased, broken character fragments, obviously, from previous data, as well as a multitude of other partially erased characters. Look at all the partial characters that were overwritten by both Nolan's and Fritz's initials.

You are imagining things. You mistake shadows from irregularities in the paper for letters (under the last half of the word "NURSES," you see two little "F"s, I take it <snip>). You arbitrarily decide where Nolan's initials end and supposedly extraneous "character fragments" begin (it seems to me Nolan's "M" and "M" merely extend below the circle drawn, after slight breaks, parallel to each other, indicating that the pen skipped at that point on the paper).

Hank, you don't have to call all these Parkland witnesses liars or delusional anymore.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

Please directly quote Hank calling any witness by either of those terms.

Of course I never did. He won't be able to quote me using either term.

This is just one more strawman argument from Robert. He avoids my actual arguments like they were contagious.

He takes a point of mine, asks a question instead of responding to the point("Are you suggesting Mickey Herskowitz was lying?"... "Are the witnesses delusional?") and then, in subsequent posts, "forgets" that was never my argument.

For example:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Are you actually calling Mickey Herskowitz a liar??

[quote=Robert Harris;10856890]Or are you going to continue to call Herskowitz a liar?[quote]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

So, what is your "rebuttal" today? Was Hershowitz a liar, or Connally a liar, because he didn't swear on a bible that he was truthful:-)

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Do you REALLY think all three of those men suffered identical delusions about where that bullet came from?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Or were you thinking that they all lied, because they hadn't been sworn in with their hands on a bible?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

Hank, you don't have to call all these Parkland witnesses liars or delusional anymore.

I don't blame him. If I had as little evidence as Robert did, I might resort to logical fallacies too. It's the drowning man syndrome -- latching onto whatever is handy. In Robert's case, it's mostly hearsay and logical fallacies.

I have never in my life, claimed their were seven shots. How many more times do you intend to misrepresent me?

You have, in various posts, suggested just that -- seven separate shots.

I count your suggestions of all these:

1. A shot prior to Z133
2. A shot at Z150-160
3. A shot at Z223
4. A shot at Z285
5. A shot at Z313
6&7. A minimum of two more shots after Z313.

133 was suggested here:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

There may however, have been an earlier shot, fired prior to Zapruder turning his camera back on at 133. I discuss it during the first few minutes of this presentation.

The next four were suggested here (and a multitude of other places):

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

That is untrue. We can be certain that at least four were fired, at 150-160, 223, 285 and 313.

And you suggested at least another two after Z313 here:

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

THAT is why we see no startle reactions to the early shots, even remotely similar to these:
jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
or the ones following 313.

When I add those up, I get seven different shots that you have suggested. Answer the questions I asked, Bob. What's the upper limit here -- 10, 15, 20? And can you specify the shooting locations and the evidence for those locations?

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The simple fact is, that we have no way of knowing how many shots were fired, because some of them came from a suppressed weapon.

You've argued that, but not established that.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

The fact that only one of the early shots was audible, and neither was nearly as loud as the ones at the end, proves that beyond any doubt.

"One of the early shots" is begging the question... that's right, another LOGICAL FALLACY.

"and neither was..." is still just begging the question... that's right, another LOGICAL FALLACY.

You deal a lot in logical fallacies and hearsay. You also avoid my points a lot.

An unknown number of additional shooters, fired an unknown number of shots, for which we have no physical evidence. They left no trace of evidence.

We base this deduction on Mr Harris believing that the witnesses all had powers of recall, that are perfect enough to him apply to the Z Film, and discern that several people were 'startled' by a gunshot (and ONLY a gunshot, to the exclusion of all other noises). We base it on his opinion of the illegible markings on an envelope. His opinion of the appearance of a bullet. And his ability to understand when decades old memoirs, not sworn testimony, is more accurate than testimony given at the time (despite memories growing less accurate with time...)

And yet we remain unconvinced.

Robert's theory is, in some ways, remarkably similar to Lifton's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory that JFK's body was altered before the official autopsy. Both Harris and Lifton assume that in any conflict between the physical evidence and witness statements (at least for some witnesses), that the witness statements are confirmed, unalterable fact, and the physical evidence must be wrong or faked. Even in cases of hearsay witnesses decades after the fact. It's pretty much the perfect example of confirmation bias.